What I'd generalize is that on technical matters, there are few communication issues across cultures. People are able to make themselves understood and collaborate, even in the face of language barriers. On the other hand, even simple business discussions within one's own culture can because quickly ridiculous, with big misunderstandings, nobody saying what they mean, politics, etc. Cynically I think it's because business is mostly bullshit so comes down to irrelevant political stuff.
When reading up on international business communication, to prep for one of my roles, one of the writers gave an example of a statement an engineer might make: that widget X will work in time. But you're supposed to know from context, at the times they repeatedly said that, that what they really meant is it definitely won't work in time.
Some differences of culture/communication that I recall hearing can happen:
* that it's bad to say "no" in some contexts (e.g., it's disrespectful, or a sense that the other would rather you say "yes" but not follow through than to say "no");
* that a person should do exactly the task they were told to do without second-guessing nor feedback;
* that one shouldn't contradict their superior;
* that one can't mention a mistake of someone else;
* that admitting a mistake one made would cause embarrassment or a loss of face to the person hearing it;
* how important trust is, and how it's established.
Engineers talking with each other about tech aren't necessarily immune to this.
Of course these are just possibilities for misunderstanding to be aware of, as people from different cultures find common ground to communicate. (In many ways, I've been very impressed with how well many colleagues and partners around the globe have performed. I've also been humbled by how many people not in the US meet US-born people like me well more than halfway -- in language, and in cultural faux pas tolerance, etc. I've also seen more consistently friendly behavior/mindset in some overseas company locations than we'd normally find in a US company location.)
Also, I'm sure that there are lots of US-isms that are baffling to others (even if they learned it through training or US media), and I'd bet I'm oblivious to many of them, having grown up with them as "normal".
What's funny about it is that in an environment where everyone is aware of this, the apparent intended effect of sugar-coating doesn't work at all. You'll just hurt people by saying their stuff is okay.
Later when we realized we asked the wrong thing, they said "oh yes of course we knew it was not the right thing". The convention that you don't argue with "the boss" cost us many man-months of work.
You can only successfully discuss technical matters if both parties are willing to do just that.
I’ve lived in many cultures. In what culture, does “done” not mean that?
In some cultures you may lie about it being done, but internally you know what’s being asked and that you’re lying in reply.
In regards to the book points, the last one reminds me of another great book on cultural differences by Michelle Gelfand titled "Rule Makers, Rule Breakers" [1] on her theory about 'Tight' and 'Loose' societies. As someone who has lived and worked in several very different parts of the world (and called very different places 'home' at various times in life) the book went a long way to giving context on why I feel different in different places (I'm from a 'tight' society but now spend much of my time living in locales that tend to be 'loose' but always feel a bit alien due to never being able to shake the want of 'tightness' aka rules, order, timeliness and predictability.)
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-Breaking-Invisible-Bounda...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Makers-Breakers-Tight-Cultures/d...
For instance, a German manufacturer will generally tell you “no, we cannot achieve that” on the initial proposal and won’t agree to any requirement they aren’t completely confident they can meet. (This can be frustrating as it feels like they aren’t willing to try.)
An American manufacturer will generally be more willing to agree to requirements they might not be able to meet, as they will make an effort to meet them, and inform you early on when their effort fails. (This can be frustrating, as it feels like they’ve surprised you.)
A British manufacturer tends to be somewhere in between, they will initially flag the difficult requirement in an understated way, gradually becoming less understated as the problem grows. So there’s a hint of the German immediate no, and they ramp up to the American “So, it turns out…”.
Where this gets quite dramatically different is when you venture outside of the West.
The Japanese way is to continually promise fulfillment while conspicuously making no progress on it. It can be quite odd to experience - until you realize they’re trying to get you to notice the contradiction, so you can conclude for yourself that the requirement isn’t possible for them, and then reach out and relieve them of the obligation. It has the same function as the American “So, it turns out…”, it’s just obfuscated with politeness. Without awareness of this you can get into some really difficult situations.
The Chinese way is even more wild to Westerners. Their solution for a requirement they can’t fulfill is to produce a small sample of parts that do meet the requirement and give you those first. The idea is that you can use those to show your boss that the requirements have been met.
I do think it’s true that some cultural approaches are so incompatible with each other that they will never be able to work together efficiently at scale, but each culture is internally consistent and knows how to operate within itself.
As a Canadian, I can reveal that when someone says "I'm sorry," what they tend to mean is, "I'm not going to pay."
Witticisms aside, manifestations of temprament across cultures are ridiculously diverse. If there were such a thing as a type-A-minus personality, I might fall into that category, where one presumes others take responsibility for their own words and actions. The excessive submissiveness in some cultures (calling people sir, inability to decline, etc) is difficult not to interpret as a form of perfidy and passive aggression, where if you aren't taking responsibility for the conversation, it implies I must. By some cultures I mean west of Nevada.
As an anglo, my interactions with people from France are predictably funny, and the effect of the intellectual sparring yields some amazing solutions, but resolving that we have the mutual dignity of peers tends to take a few rounds. If I were to characterize what people interpret as Canadian niceness, it's that we are typically raised to treat malice as an inferior sentiment. Even though it may be real and meaningful, mainly it means you're losing. As a result, we produce some uniquely insufferable pricks, but if you're wondering how someone can seem so oblivious to insult, this detail might provide some useful context.
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-INTL-ED-Decoding/dp/16103...
I have had Americans use "what the British mean when they say ..." on me and colleagues and it has backfired badly.
If it were a condescending guide for "how women think" (for example) then it would rightly be thrown out as trash.
Turns out that people are individuals and generalisations of "You are X so you are thinking/will do Y" are not useful.
Use with caution.
Despite being American, I've had a boss literally ask me to "read their mind" on something, I'm shocked I outlasted them in the company despite my low rank compared to them. Luckily for me subsequent leadership was more forthright.
Legend has it that David Cameron asked Merkel. She said "No". He thought it means he can get what he wants – only to find out later, that indeed a German "no" is a clear and tight "no". But by then he already fell over his rhetoric...
As a French, I don't think I ever calculated pi, we were just handed the formulas and told to use it and I don't think I saw an exercise on how to calculate pi for a few years (or maybe I didn't saw it at school...)
The PI example might be slightly exaggerated but it is not such a far fetch.
For my generation, most advanced Mathematics were taught in France by first a theorem proof and then by an example on how to use it. I do not know if it is still the case nowadays.
Other models and research exist.
- "Trompenaars's model of national culture differences"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompenaars%27s_model_of_natio...
Took me forever to get used to California English after I moved here from the slavic part of Europe. Still find a lot of it utterly boneheaded, but at least I know what’s going on and can cope … at great cost to personal sanity.
It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
> It will never not irk me when people say ”Please feel free to X” when they mean ”It is paramount that you do X”
Another big one is when people say “Not my favorite”, but mean “I hate this”.
And a cause of great confusion in the workplace: “Can we do X?” meaning “You should do X, I am delegating this task to you”
And then there’s the whole genre of “corporate speak” memes like what “Per my last email” really means.
On a more personal note, the California Yes is super frustrating when making plans with people. Just because someone said Yes, does not mean they have any intention of actually showing up. They might get a headache an hour or so before the planned meeting time. Headaches are very popular in California it seems.
There are many dimensions of cultural differences and values to navigate, including:
- Physical social distance
- Collective - individualist
- Transactional - social
- Generosity - frugality
- Past-, present-, or future-centric
- Hierarchy - egalitarian
- Blunt - saving face
- Adversarial - cooperative
- Organic - rigid process
"Talking with tact: Polite language as a balance between kindness and informativity"
Keywords: Politeness; computational modeling; communicative goals; pragmatics
PDF: https://langcog.stanford.edu/papers_new/yoon-2016-cogsci.pdf
"Discussion"
"Why would a speaker ever say something that is not maximally truthful and informative? Communication is often examined from the perspective of successful information transfer from speaker to listener. In the social realm, however, communication also can serve the social function of making the listener feel good and saving her face. We proposed here that intuitively “polite” utterances arise from the desire to be kind (i.e. save face). A cooperative speaker then tries to balance the goals to be kind and to be informative, and produces utterances of varying degrees of politeness that reflect this balance. To test this proposal, we examined inferential judgments on a speaker’s utterance, which was a potentially face-threatening evaluation of the listener’s performance. As we predicted, participants’ inferences about the true state of the world differed based on what the speaker said and whether the speaker’s intended goal was to be honest, nice or mean (Expt. 2). We were also able to predict participants’ attributions of different social goals to speakers depending on how well the literal utterance meaning matched the actual rating the performance deserved (Expt. 3). The model presented here relates to other work done in game-theoretic pragmatics. Van Rooy (2003) uses a gametheoretic analysis of polite requests (“Could you possibly take me home?”) to argue the purpose of polite language is to align the preferences of interlocutors. Our notion of social utility Usocial is similar in that it motivates speakers to signal worlds that make the listener feel good. Van Rooy’s analysis, however, relies on the notion that polite language is costly (in a social way e.g., by reducing one’s social status or incurring social debt to one’s conversational partner) but it’s not clear how the polite behaviors explored in our experiments (not polite requests) would incur any cost to speaker or listener. Our model derives its predictions by construing the speaker utility as a collection of possible goals (here, epistemic and social goals). The speech-acts themselves are not costly. Will machines ever be polite? Politeness requires more than merely saying conventionalized words (please, thank you) at the right moments; it requires a balance of informativity and kindness. Politeness is not an exception to rational communication; it is one important element of rational communication, serving a key social function of maintaining relationships. We extended the Rational Speech Acts framework to include social utility as a motive for utterance production. This work takes a concrete step toward quantitative models of the nuances of polite speech. And it moves us closer to courteous computation—to computers that communicate with tact."
